American Arrogance Rooted in Christian Beliefs

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So Christians are only Christians because of what they get for being Christians? The difference is that the responsibilities to Christ come now, while the promise of heaven is not until we leave this transitory life. So that makes Christianity significantly different from the carrot and the stick.

I won't get paid for the work I did last week until this Friday, and if I got fired then it would take weeks or months before the reduction in funds would impact my lifestyle. There's still a carrot and a stick, though, even if the reward/punishment is deferred.

[Ben Kenobi]

I attack Christianity as long as it claims to be the only true way , but I leave Christians alone. I do not judge people on the basis of their religion.

Then you attack Christianity, and Christians for their sincere beliefs in claiming to be the truth, and not a truth. Granted, I agree that Christians ought to permit others to practice freely, but I think it strange to criticise Christians since they are among the freest societies with respect to religious toleration.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Then you attack Christianity, and Christians for their sincere beliefs in claiming to be the truth, and not a truth. Granted, I agree that Christians ought to permit others to practice freely, but I think it strange to criticise Christians since they are among the freest societies with respect to religious toleration.

I believe the argument is actually an attack against any religion regardless of tolerance as they all essentially believe theirs is the truth.

How very intolerant a view, no?

[Atahualpa]

Originally posted by Saras
Imagine a revirginified ho that KNOWS how to do it

So that the only difference is that with one its bloody and with the other not.... I think I want to ignore the bloody mess.
Mohammed probably didn't knew any of this, it's doubtful he ever banged a woman, given the strange treatment the koran/quran and islamic law give to the other sex. One thing that certainly failed the Age of Enlightenment test. Or the 70s sexual revolution...

[Ben Kenobi]

I believe the argument is actually an attack against any religion regardless of tolerance as they all essentially believe theirs is the truth.

How very intolerant a view, no?

Tolerance implies that you disagree with the position of the other person, in that you are putting up with what they have to say.

Tolerance does not mean that you believe everyone is equally right. In fact, if you believe that there is no truth, then tolerance cannot be right, can it?

[Ben Kenobi]

I won't get paid for the work I did last week until this Friday, and if I got fired then it would take weeks or months before the reduction in funds would impact my lifestyle. There's still a carrot and a stick, though, even if the reward/punishment is deferred

Is there a difference between the hope of a reward in the next world, in that you do not know when you shall receive? For example, would you work for a company, if they did not set a specific time, upon which you receive compensation?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by aneeshm


So , in brief , you have no proof , and expect me to find it for you .

I have a text buried by my wife years ago. I'm not going to dig it out for you. The information is out there if you're interested.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Is there a difference between the hope of a reward in the next world, in that you do not know when you shall receive?

The "when" hardly seems relevant here, seeing as how your death is inevitable. If you believed that you probably would not be rewarded for your actions and performed those actions nevertheless, then you'd have a valid claim that you're not following a carrot-and-stick "moral" code. However, you're saying that the fact that you might not get your carrot for, say, another 100 years or so somehow negates the fact that you're still relying on the assumption that you're eventually going to get that carrot.

Would you believe in God even without the promise of eternal bliss and/or the threat of eternal torment? If so, then why even contemplate/acknowledge the carrot or the stick? Would you consider somebody's "belief" in God to be true/valid/whatever if they "believed" only out of hope for the carrot and/or fear of the stick? If not, then why have the carrot or the stick in the first place?

For example, would you work for a company, if they did not set a specific time, upon which you receive compensation?

Yes, if the compensation was sufficient.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by C0ckney


in all fairness, i didn't have to try that hard.

Incapable of proper debate , are you ?

'casteism' has throughout india's history been very important, to deny that is rather like denying the sky is blue. but it's refreshing to hear that you want to talk about the present. so here how the caste system TODAY affects people.

from the UNESCO report 'india's hidden apartheid' which i linked to earlier -

I am the first to say that the caste system should have never gone beyond the system of clasification it originally was . And I have said , on many previous occasion , that today the treatment of many of the lower ( though I do not think they are lower ) castes in horrible in the villages . But I say that it does not have scriptural sanction ( specially the sort of thing that goes on today ) . Therefore , it is not a part of Hinduism .

sorry, what was that about barbarism...?

Does the religion sanction it ? No ? Then the religion itself is not barbaric ( hough some of its followers may be ) .

And I repeat - politicians have realised that Brahmins do not vote as onle bloc , and thus cannot be used as a political vote bank ( like they use the others ) . So we have politicians saying to Dalits things like , "I am your goddess , Dalits , so give me and my party money" ( happened yesterday ) . Brahmins do not enjoy state protection . I'm a Brahmin . I know . In fact , it is possible that I may be treated worse than others because I am a Brahmin . That report is flawed .

and the brahmins do alright out of the caste system too

That is because the four castes were classified thus :

Shudra : Menial physical work
Vaishya : Commerce/trade/agriculture
Kshatriya : Soldiers and defenders of the land
Brahmin : Men of the mind - scholars


Because of this , Brahmins immediately took to Western education when it came ( as traditionally knowledge is revered ) . Due to that , they gained an advantage over everyone else , because only educated Indians could be part of the new system . Now do you understand why Brahmins hold the number of posts they do ? A curious historical concatenation of circumstances , along with the Brahminical tradition , placed them in exactly the right spot to benefit from the new system , and they did .

Another thing :

I have repeatedly said that there are huge reservations for the "Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes" in governmental institutions - many times in excess of 50 % to 90 % . And nobody else can take those seats , even if they are more meritorious . So you get the situation that even a very , very underqualified SC/ST person geta a seat , because there is a lack of qualified applicants .

Not only that , but passing percentages in examinations in colleges and universitied are lower for Dalits and others . So if a Brahmin gets 30 % , he will be considered failed , while a Dalit may pass with only 25 % . This is bad for Dalits themselves , because the education they may have worked very hard to get becomes meaningless is someone else can be as qualified as they are , without actually earning it . I would rather go to a non-SCST doctor , because I know that at least he will have earned his degree , and I don't want to put my life in the hands of someone who is unqualified . And I wish it were not so . I wish that casteism as it exists today would go away . I dislike it intensely . But I refuse to condemn Hinduism on the basis of casteism today , for it was not intended to be a part of the religion .










And , most importantly - saying that Hinduism does not have a 100 % clean record will not get you anywhere WRT Christianity . Care to jusfity the abuses I posted ? Of the sick s*** that goes in India under the name of conversion ?

I say the religion is barbaric because it claims that its way is the only way . I do not mind saying that I have a way - but I do mind if someone says that all other ways are useless , and vilifies them .

[RGBVideo]

American Arrogance Rooted in Christian Beliefs

5.7/10

[RGBVideo]

Carrot-and-stick "moral" codes are at best worthless, and are at worst completely amoral.

Uhh... they believe that those who don't take christ as their salvation are going to hell and they want to save them by converting them. It has nothing to do with moral codes.

The "when" hardly seems relevant here, seeing as how your death is inevitable. If you believed that you probably would not be rewarded for your actions and performed those actions nevertheless, then you'd have a valid claim that you're not following a carrot-and-stick "moral" code. However, you're saying that the fact that you might not get your carrot for, say, another 100 years or so somehow negates the fact that you're still relying on the assumption that you're eventually going to get that carrot.

Would you believe in God even without the promise of eternal bliss and/or the threat of eternal torment? If so, then why even contemplate/acknowledge the carrot or the stick? Would you consider somebody's "belief" in God to be true/valid/whatever if they "believed" only out of hope for the carrot and/or fear of the stick? If not, then why have the carrot or the stick in the first place?

This might surprise you, but some people don't need carrots in order to live a pure life...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
"Jesus Saves"

Saves what? Green stamps?

[Berzerker]

Christians flock to Christ, because they believe he offers the truth, and not a truth. Because he is God, and not just someone who talks about him.

Jesus talked alot about God and consistently referred to him as another being or entity.

[Jon Miller]

yes, we all know that there were different interpretations out there...

JM

[Berzerker]

There's a difference between the implicit arrogance of knowing God is on your side and the explicit arrogance of conquest and theocracy.

Then the problem is not arrogance, its the desire to conquer and convert.

There I would disagree ( about the inherent part ) . Maybe you speak of your experience of the Semitic religions ?

Just my experience with the human condition, everyone wants to be heroic, everyone wants to be special. Arrogance is bound to show up in our religions because arrogance is part of our humanity.

I like Buddhism, but it isn't immune to fanaticism either. The Tamil Tigers have committed numerous suicide bombings over the last 20 years or so.

Aren't they commies?